Save the Rainforest - Keep "it's a small world" a classic.

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

When Steve Davison was doing the changing to "it's a small world", I don't remember anyone objecting.

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

I wasn't making any objections at the time.

Wow - glad we know how you really feel now ... your opinions are the only that really matters

I like how CU@DL is still posting all these years later

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by HBG2

At this point, I do not.

"Might be" is a loaded, slippery modality.

No it's not - its simply a choice between making conditional claims vs. authoritative claims when you know you don't have the complete picture. The different between a hypothesis and a theorem. But on top its all opinion - and you have this mess.

The holiday overlay though is a great historical example of judging before implementation and prejudice. History has shown its been accepted and appreciated. While there may be some purists who don't agree with it - the park isn't built just for them and certainly they are not funding a foundation to run the park just operate in their vision.

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

No it's not - its simply a choice between making conditional claims vs. authoritative claims when you know you don't have the complete picture. The different between a hypothesis and a theorem. But on top its all opinion - and you have this mess.

The holiday overlay though is a great historical example of judging before implementation and prejudice. History has shown its been accepted and appreciated. While there may be some purists who don't agree with it - the park isn't built just for them and certainly they are not funding a foundation to run the park just operate in their vision.

My claims are conditional: I believe my position is true until someone shows it to be false. Saying, "But you could be wrong" is not the same as showing the argument to be false. Part of my argument is that there is no need at all to wait and see, no need at all to reserve judgment, because the problem is purely at the conceptual level. Put one Disney character—any literary character, actually—into the ride and you have diminished and disrespected the ride by that amount. To tell me I should wait and see is to tell me my arguments are wrong without bothering to tell me why.

[woxel1]

Could you imagine if people really talked like this in Disneyland? Sheesh.
Lighten up a little, guys.

[Coheteboy]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

No it's not - its simply a choice between making conditional claims vs. authoritative claims when you know you don't have the complete picture. The different between a hypothesis and a theorem. But on top its all opinion - and you have this mess.

The holiday overlay though is a great historical example of judging before implementation and prejudice. History has shown its been accepted and appreciated. While there may be some purists who don't agree with it - the park isn't built just for them and certainly they are not funding a foundation to run the park just operate in their vision.

Yah, it's true that there have been examples of this, but all I can go by is my own gut feelings and instincts. I embraced Small World and Haunted Mansion holiday and still love them after the fact. I was against Pirates changes, and STILL am. I'm against finding nemo as the theme and subject of the Submarine Voyage. Still am. And I still have issues with Pirates Lair. I knew DCA was going to be a failure. It was.

The times when I was wrong, was when Disney flat out let me down. I was thrilled and excited for Light Magic...until I saw it. I was excited for a Pooh ride until I rode it. I was excited for a Monsters Inc attraction until I rode it. And I was in love with the idea of a new tomorrowland, until i seen it.

I haven't been wrong with a bad prediction yet. Keep in mind, this isn't about money or success. It's just about what I feel is a bad step in the long run. Bad steps cost money because they need to be addressed eventually.

[animagusurreal]

Originally Posted by woxel1

Could you imagine if people really talked like this in Disneyland? Sheesh.
Lighten up a little, guys.

I don't talk like this in Disneyland .

To all the people who are coming here to say we shouldn't discuss this topic - I may not like the Pooh ride, but I don't go up to people in line for it and yell at them to stop riding it. I go ride something else and then come here and talk about how I don't like the Pooh ride, because that's what this board is for - to discuss things .

[woxel1]

I appreciate a dialogue, I just feel like some people in this thread could channel their verbosity in more positive ways

[MrLiver]

I appreciate a good dialogue too.

There's just no point in discussing something with a group of people who are already convinced they are right and admit that nothing will change their mind.

[animagusurreal]

^


Well, changing minds isn't the entire point. There's also the open exchange of ideas, even if you don't agree with them.

Anyhow, if you think you can't change people's minds by discussing things with them, what makes you think they'll listen to you when you tell them to stop discussing things?

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

I appreciate a good dialogue too.

There's just no point in discussing something with a group of people who are already convinced they are right and admit that nothing will change their mind.

Where is this phantom admission?

[flynnibus]

Originally Posted by HBG2

My claims are conditional: I believe my position is true until someone shows it to be false.

So if I say 'you are going to die by getting hit by lightning' I can claim myself to be correct and continue to make such claims until you die by some other means?

It doesn't work that way.

You are free to your opinions, and others are free to judge the value of your opinions, with or without supporting evidence. But as I said, the difference is when people can't identify the difference between their opinions and claims of fact. When people fail to separate subjective from objective - we end up in this mess.

Originally Posted by Coheteboy

Yah, it's true that there have been examples of this, but all I can go by is my own gut feelings and instincts

I think the point Mr Liver was making was that some refuse to acknowledge fault even after the fact. You don't have to be right in predictions - you just have to be honest with your results

Here, specific examples have been shown and Prag just ignores it and pounds on like a man in a bubble. Denial is a strong trait.

[HBG2]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

So if I say 'you are going to die by getting hit by lightning' I can claim myself to be correct and continue to make such claims until you die by some other means?

It doesn't work that way.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does work that way, and yes, as a matter of fact, you may indeed make that claim as often and as loudly as you wish, and you may stick to it until I die (peacefully, in my sleep, at a very advanced age, thank you). What is required of you and what will keep us out of "the mess" as you call it, is that you be willing to discuss why you think I'm lightning bait, and be willing to hear someone else explain why they find those reasons less-than-convincing.

Until someone credibly refutes my arguments against putting characters into IASW, I say they are true. I welcome all such refutations. Two or three MCers have engaged me in debate. I don't agree with them, but I think I satisfactorily answered them, and I respect them for using real arguments.

Whaddya got?

[MasterGracey]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

Here knock yourself out:

Google Groups

Google Groups 2

Originally Posted by MrLiver

Or for those of you too lazy to click a link, here's a quote from Al Lutz regarding the changes to Small World in 1997:

Surprisingly, you made good points here, Liver. Ultimately the exact outcome of Disneyland's "small world" additions are unknown -- however, I think this time the problem is unique because -

• Kevin L. Blair, Mary Blair's son, has spoken out against the changes
• Jeanne Chamberlain & Maggie Richardson, Mary Blair's neices, have spoken out against the changes
• A slew of Animation Professionals (Blair and WED were animation professionals as well) have spoken out against the changes
• The Hong Kong Disneyland attraction gives us a glimpse into what is likely in store for the Disneyland attraction.

Of course there has been a slew of misrepresentation of what is actually coming to the updated show. There have been conflicting reports about the fate of the Rainforest (WDI has denied it, and then said that "no firm plans" have been made for the Rainforest) and Disney has been pretty quiet about which characters will be coming to the show, except for Alice in Wonderland and the White Rabbit.

I noticed in the discussions you posted that many people were similarly posting misrepresentations of the "it's a small world" holiday overlay -- claims that the show would be Christmas-centric were obviously wrong, but people latched onto those (calling the show "Small World Christmas" instead of "it's a small world holiday"), which diverted the discussion into a discussion about the theme appropriateness of focusing on Christmas. Ultimately that discussion proved worthless because the show does NOT focus on Christmas.

For me, the discussion of the changes coming to "it's a small world" largely deal with theme appropriateness. I feel justified in questioning the appropriateness of Disney characters in the show because Disney has acknowledged that these characters WILL be added, and we have seen pictures of characters from the Hong Kong Disneyland attraction, which are likely going to be essentially the same to the ones being added to Disneyland, in terms of design and look.

I understand where you and a lot of other people are coming from. The people opposing the changes ARE working with limited information, but I think the information we are working with (Marty Sklar's letter, Kim Irvine's interview, Marylyn Waters' comments) justify the concern that many of us are feeling.

It's fair enough that you disagree with the opposition. But the "wait and see" method that you keep pushing for is flawed because while it ended up being a good idea for "it's a small world" holiday, there have been many other instances where "wait and see" resulted in "wait and be disappointed" -- i.e.: Tomorrowland 98, Pooh, DCA, Tiki Room - Under New Management, etc.

Nevertheless, thanks for actually contributing a compelling counter-argument here.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by flynnibus

I think the point Mr Liver was making was that some refuse to acknowledge fault even after the fact. You don't have to be right in predictions - you just have to be honest with your results

Here, specific examples have been shown and Prag just ignores it and pounds on like a man in a bubble. Denial is a strong trait.

Denial... ?

[Matterhorn Boy]

Originally Posted by MrLiver

It's not bad - it's change. The older you get the more likely you are to hate change of any kind. It's just the way of the world.

As I have said before, I see the folks on here complaining about the changes in the park just as I look back on those folks who complained that ragtime music was causing the degradation of American culture.

Change happens.

Ridiculous.

Ragtime music, the blues, and the jazz music that came out of both were all about breaking down the restrictions, rules and social conservatism that defined the turn of the 20th century. They represented a liberation of the mind; a wholesale embrace of intellectualism in music.

The changes to the park over the last two decades have hardly been a rule-breaking liberation of the mind in the spirit of creativity. If anything, they move toward a structured and calculated oppression of it. No longer are the creative minds at WDI in charge of the content they produce, but their very ideas are dictated by public polling and passing trends. They've become slaves to the public they're expected to entertain with fresh ideas.

There are good changes and bad changes. Walt Disney once turned a grassy hill that bordered Fantasyland and Tomorrowland into a scale Swiss mountain and bobsled roller-coaster. He turned a failed county fair area called Holidayland into New Orleans Square, providing the two crown jewels of Disney Imagineering. He plussed his attractions not with familar characters and marketing ploys, but with new technology and adventures. He beat his own drum, and the public followed him, and he made the public forget what had been there before with the sheer blinding radiant brilliance of his new ideas.

This change isn't brilliant. It's unneccesary, and it cuts the original message of the attraction to ribbons. Accepting any change, regardless of it's quality or integration in its attraction, is sheer ignorance of the qualities and standards Disney's empire is built on.